[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 14:02, Turchanyi Geza <turchanyi.geza at gmail.com> wrote:

> It is bad to make looser the address allocation rules at the RIR level.
> Address allocation rules MUST be the same for every regional Internet
> registry.

No one is stopping the other RIRs from following suit; if anything
this will most likely speed up adaption. I agree that a similar policy
across all RIRs is desirable, though.


> Therefore is is wise to create exceptional rules that could support 6RD,
> however, these rules should be discussed at global level and MUST be valid
> only for a limited period of time.

So you want to have a goldrush period where LIR grab a /29 because
they can and then exclude LIR which are created at a later date and/or
LIRs which did not act quickly enough from gaining the same resources?
Or should LIRs be required to return addresses assigned under this
policy? Will they be required to use this for 6rd only to ensure
simple returns? What about 6rdv2? Will this be covered under allowed
use? What about 7rd? What about something else entirely?

-- 
Richard